On Friday 22 October 2004 03:01, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 09:13:04PM -0700, cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> | Personally, I'd go with:
> | > no
> |
> | as in, no compelling reason to do it (that i'm aware of 8-).
>
> We want to separate
> .so as PIC object component of a shared library
> from
> .so as a shared library
> to simplify building of dlopen-able objects that aren't named
> "libfoo.so". (This is a separate issue I'm working on).
>
> So, even without moving the former (PIC object) to .lo, I'd like
> to seriously consider moving it to another non-.so suffix.
How about .pico?
Nick